Horne and Pitfield Building Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Limak Investments

I am largely in agreement with Planning Administration overview... this development is a bonus for the walk-ability of 104th Street and assists in underscoring the importance of the Ice District as a nodal area that needs to be intensified. Nicely packaged @IanO. The City needs to "handcuff" Limak to this deal so that they do not exercise an upgrade-and-"sale" scenario -- they should make sure that their reputation is on the line -- precise with no wiggle room.
 
^

we shouldn’t have to figure out how to handicap limak - or anyone else - from not being able to exercise their development rights, we shouldn’t be giving away development rights like free popcorn and then trying to figure out how to claw them back..

zoning rights belongs to the land and flow with it, they’re independent of who owns the land and rightfully so.

as for limak completing this project, why in the world would they even consider it? the lift in land value is now already in the bank and is probably more than the net present value they would get by completing the actual project. they would be crazy to take on that additional development risk, as would anyone else. we’ve seen so much of this already, you’d think we’d learn by now.
 
kcantor said:
^

we shouldn’t have to figure out how to handicap limak - or anyone else - from not being able to exercise their development rights, we shouldn’t be giving away development rights like free popcorn and then trying to figure out how to claw them back..

zoning rights belongs to the land and flow with it, they’re independent of who owns the land and rightfully so.

as for limak completing this project, why in the world would they even consider it? the lift in land value is now already in the bank and is probably more than the net present value they would get by completing the actual project. they would be crazy to take on that additional development risk, as would anyone else. we’ve seen so much of this already, you’d think we’d learn by now.
Click to expand...
"the lift in land value is now already in the bank and is probably more than the net present value they would get by completing the actual project.". True so very true. I forget whether the site has been declared a historic site and if not - they best sell sooner than later to a developer that might want to demolish the existing building.

I am curious, Ken, what you think may have been the net gain they made by the rezoning?
 
EdmTrekker said:
"the lift in land value is now already in the bank and is probably more than the net present value they would get by completing the actual project.". True so very true. I forget whether the site has been declared a historic site and if not - they best sell sooner than later to a developer that might want to demolish the existing building.

I am curious, Ken, what you think may have been the net gain they made by the rezoning?
Click to expand...
downtown multi family sites seem to be trading in the range of $30 - 50 per buildable sf.

given that the bonus being given is achieved at the top where it is the most valuable square footage on the project, at $50 psf an additional 180,000 sf of buildable area would have a current theoretical value of $9,000,000.
 
kcantor said:
downtown multi family sites seem to be trading in the range of $30 - 50 per buildable sf.

given that the bonus being given is achieved at the top where it is the most valuable square footage on the project, at $50 psf an additional 180,000 sf of buildable area would have a current theoretical value of $9,000,000.
Click to expand...
A very nice gifting courtesy of the Taxpayers of Edmonton ... the City administration could have said no. I suppose that 180,000 sq ft might achieve 180-250 additional condos to what might have been built without the rezoning? Whats the residential tax payback to make up the gifted $9 million and what I am I forgetting? .
 
EdmTrekker said:
A very nice gifting courtesy of the Taxpayers of Edmonton ... the City administration could have said no. I suppose that 180,000 sq ft might achieve 180-250 additional condos to what might have been built without the rezoning? Whats the residential tax payback to make up the gifted $9 million and what I am I forgetting? .
Click to expand...
if you assume that those 180 - 250 purchasers will simply purchase another condo if these units don't get built (which is no different that would happen if the entire project doesn't go ahead but people still want/need a condo), then there there is no residential tax payback to make up the gifted $9,000,000.
 
kcantor said:
if you assume that those 180 - 250 purchasers will simply purchase another condo if these units don't get built (which is no different that would happen if the entire project doesn't go ahead but people still want/need a condo), then there there is no residential tax payback to make up the gifted $9,000,000.
Click to expand...
I am assuming it’s a sell out. The purchasers are new to Edmonton.
 
If I was an outgoing councilor, I sure would not want my last legacy to be the destruction of another historic building likely to be replaced by another empty lot.

We are too eager to tear down things here in pursuit of nice pictures that end up being mirages and our city council has been duped too many times. I wish we would learn from past mistakes, instead of keeping on repeating them.
 
EdmTrekker said:
I am assuming it’s a sell out. The purchasers are new to Edmonton.
Click to expand...
it makes no difference... if those purchasers are "new to edmonton", i'm pretty sure they're not moving here specifically to buy a unit at the top of this building if it gets built.

if this doesn't get built or if something gets built that's 180,000 sf smaller, every one of those "new to edmonton" purchasers will simply buy something else to live in.

meaning there is no residential tax payback on the gifted $9,000,000 - they wouldn't be paying any taxes on these units that they wouldn't be paying elsewhere which means that all of the taxes that might be paid here are simply shifted from where they would still have been paid elsewhere.

it's a zero sum game for the city with nothing to be "won".
 
archited said:
What was the directive given to administration?
Click to expand...

From the September 8th Council Minutes:

That Bylaw 19859 and Charter Bylaw 19860, be referred to Administration, to work with the applicant to protect more of the existing historic Horne & Pitfield building, including the potential designation of the entire building, and return to a future City Council Public Hearing.
Due Date: To be determined
In Favour (7)D. Iveson, A. Knack, B. Esslinger, S. McKeen, M. Nickel, A. Paquette, and T. Cartmell
Opposed (3)T. Caterina, J. Dziadyk, and M. Banga
Motion Carried (7 to 3)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top